2024-11-25 PD Response to 1250 Oceanside

Home

DeVera, Ashley From: Campbell, Jean K Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:33 AM To: Derek B. Simon; 'Mark M. Murakami'; Planning Board of Appeals Cc: Bailey, Elizabeth B.; Kenneth R. Kupchak; Toren K. Yamamoto; Patrick K. Wong; Ian R. Wesley-Smith; Cynthia Y. Arashiro; Hirayama, Emily Subject: RE: 1250 Oceanside LLC (PL-BOA-2024-000104 & 105) Hi all, I will offer one final observation and leave the decision to Chair Lewis. All the deadlines we are discussing were set back on October 11'. There is nothing last minute about this process or the upcoming deadline. The Board normally allows only one week for the review of FOFCOLD&Os but in this case allowed two. Had 1250 wanted to provide their own draft,they have had 6 weeks to prepare and submit their alternative. Aloha, Jean From: Derek B. Simon <dsimon@carlsmith.com> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:10 AM To: 'Mark M. Murakami' <mmm@hawaiilawyer.com>; Campbell,Jean K<JeanK.Campbell@hawaiicounty.gov>; Planning Board of Appeals<boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Bailey, Elizabeth B. <ElizabethB.Bailey@hawaiicounty.gov>; Kenneth R. Kupchak<krk@hawaiilawyer.com>;Toren K. Yamamoto<tky@hawaiilawyer.com>; Patrick K. Wong<pwong@carlsmith.com>; Ian R. Wesley-Smith <iwesley- smith@carlsmith.com>; Cynthia Y. Arashiro<carashiro@carlsmith.com> Subject: RE: 1250 Oceanside LLC (PL-BOA-2024-000104& 105) Chair Lewis: Oceanside respectfully disagrees with the Planning Director's (and apparently Intervenor's)view of the purpose and requirements of Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Orders. HRS§91-12 requires that"[e]very decision and order adverse to a party to the proceeding, rendered by an agency in a contested case, shall be in writing or stated in the record and shall be accompanied by separate findings of fact and conclusions of law." "The requirement that the [agency] set out findings of fact and conclusions of law is no mere technical or perfunctory matter. The purpose of the statutory requirement that the agency set forth separately its findings of fact and conclusions of law is to assure reasoned decision making by the agency and enable judicial review of agency decisions." Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc., 60 Haw. 625, 642-43, 594 P.2d 612, 623-24 (1979). Simply put, "[t]he parties and the court should not be left to guess,with respect to any material question of fact,or to any group of minor matters that may have cumulative significance, the precise finding of the agency." Application of Hawaiian Tel. Co., 54 Haw. 663, 668, 513 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1973). The Planning Director's Proposed Orders provide no actual findings of fact other than an incomplete recitation of the procedural history in these appeals, and its proposed conclusions of law just quote various statutory requirements. This is clearly insufficient under the law and will leave the Circuit Court guessing as to the Board's actual findings. Oceanside is simply requesting a short continuance—to the Board's next available meeting—to provide additional proposed findings and conclusions for the Board to consider, and to which the Planning Director and Intervenor can object. Based on all of that, the Board will then be able to take the action it deems necessary and sufficient under the law, before these appeals are reviewed by the Circuit Court. 1